SkinsJock wrote:I certainly agree that the term could be derogatory when used in describing a Native American

Why is that more derogatory than describing a Caucasian person as white?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you're Caucasian... Am I right?

OK, why is it more derogatory than calling an African-American (a term I don't like because I think it just serves to further divide people) black? The point is, it's only offensive if you have the predisposition that having skin that has reddish pigmentation is bad. The word is not a label given to Native Americans by Europeans, it comes from Native Americans themselves. In this way, saying it is equivalent to using the "n" word, or other racial epithets is simply not logical.

Deadskins wrote:OK, why is it more derogatory than calling an African-American (a term I don't like because I think it just serves to further divide people) black? The point is, it's only offensive if you have the predisposition that having skin that has reddish pigmentation is bad. The word is not a label given to Native Americans by Europeans, it comes from Native Americans themselves. In this way, saying it is equivalent to using the "n" word, or other racial epithets is simply not logical.

So, I'll take that as a yes...

If Native Americans feel as if it's derogatory, who are we to tell them different? You're not in their position.

I'm not saying that I want it changed tomorrow, but that I understand why people feel a change is needed.

SkinsJock wrote:I certainly agree that the term could be derogatory when used in describing a Native American

Why is that more derogatory than describing a Caucasian person as white?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you're Caucasian... Am I right?

OK, why is it more derogatory than calling an African-American (a term I don't like because I think it just serves to further divide people) black? The point is, it's only offensive if you have the predisposition that having skin that has reddish pigmentation is bad. The word is not a label given to Native Americans by Europeans, it comes from Native Americans themselves. In this way, saying it is equivalent to using the "n" word, or other racial epithets is simply not logical.

Deadskins wrote:OK, why is it more derogatory than calling an African-American (a term I don't like because I think it just serves to further divide people) black? The point is, it's only offensive if you have the predisposition that having skin that has reddish pigmentation is bad. The word is not a label given to Native Americans by Europeans, it comes from Native Americans themselves. In this way, saying it is equivalent to using the "n" word, or other racial epithets is simply not logical.

So, I'll take that as a yes...

If Native Americans feel as if it's derogatory, who are we to tell them different? You're not in their position.

I'm not saying that I want it changed tomorrow, but that I understand why people feel a change is needed.

Last I checked this was a Democratic country. You are aware that Native-Americans did a survey and less than 10% found the name offensive right? Some argue that was 20 years ago but 90% of the Native American population are not going to change their opinion. The over 90% liked them name. End of story; move on; the people have spoken.

The French texts were described as “an Exact Copy” of what the chiefs’ French interpreter had written. The first has “si quelques peaux Rouges” translated as “if any redskins,” and the second has “tout les peaux rouges” translated as “all the redskins.” The first appearances of redskin in English are thus as literal translations of what would be in standard French Peau-Rouge (in both cases the plural Peaux-Rouges), which is itself in a translation from a dialect of the Miami-Illinois language.

Here is what Goddard is telling me. The earliest reliable instance one can find of the phrase "redskin" in print in English is a translation of a translation of a phrase used by a certain tribe to describe themselves.

As the words are quite simple I have faith in the translation.

A few observations:

This does not mean this occurrence is the first printed occurrence in English. It might be, it might not. It is simply the earliest reliable surviving instance.

Even if it is the first printed occurrence in English that does not imply the phrase was not used earlier by others.

Even if it was not used earlier by others that does not imply all subsequent uses of the phrase stem from this printed occurrence in English.

Even if all subsequent uses did stem from this "first use" that does not imply the term cannot become pejorative.

Having said all that, and being part Blackfoot, the name never bothered me. However, during a large part of my lifetime it has clearly been pejorative in almost all contexts outside its use as a name for our NFL team. You'll never hear a newscaster refer to a meeting among "redskins" unless it concerns our team. What you'll hear is are things like "tribal leaders" and "native Americans" - never "redskins."

Here is what another writer says on this:

A highly regarded study by Ives Goddard, a senior linguist in the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of History’s Department of Anthropology, has demonstrated the term “redskin” originated as a translation from Native American languages. The term was used by Native Americans for themselves, and throughout the nineteenth century, the term was essentially neutral when used by whites, reflecting neither a particularly positive or particularly negative connotation.

On the other hand, it does appear that during the era of the “Hollywood Western,” from roughly 1920 to 1970, the term “Redskins” was used regularly to refer to Native Americans who were especially primitive and war-like and rarely in ways that were flattering.

Many contemporary Native Americans and non-Native Americans alike perceive the term to be a racial epithet, but how the transition in meaning occurred is not at all clear.

The situation is further complicated by evidence that many Native Americans apparently do not believe the use of Indian team names is objectionable.

A widely-cited poll of Native Americans by Sports Illustrated magazine conducted in 2002 reported that a significant majority of Native Americans supported the continued use of Native American team names.

Moreover, a number of Native American-controlled schools still use Indian nicknames for their sports teams. For example, the Haskell Indian Nations University of Lawrence, Kansas calls its teams the “Indians” and uses a drawing of an Indian in full native headdress as its logo, and the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, founded as a state university for Native Americans, has a special dispensation from the NCAA to call its teams “Braves.” The teams of Red Mesa High School on the Navajo Reservation in Teec Nos Pos, Arizona are known as the “Redskins.”

I (DarthMonk) imagine that if we had grown up with a team named the Braves (the original name of our team) there would be absolutely no issue whatsoever. I have never heard "Braves" used as a pejorative. Most all of us would be arguing against change.

For the record, George Preston Marshall changed the name from Braves to Redskins but not to honor anyone. The rent was about to be raised at Braves Field and Marshall had just finished losing $46,000 in 1932. He moved to Fenway Park and changed the name to suggest a kinship with the Red Sox while keeping the connection to an Indian theme similar to the Braves.

DarthMonk wrote:I (DarthMonk) imagine that if we had grown up with a team named the Braves (the original name of our team) there would be absolutely no issue whatsoever. I have never heard "Braves" used as a pejorative. Most all of us would be arguing against change.

For the record, George Preston Marshall changed the name from Braves to Redskins but not to honor anyone. The rent was about to be raised at Braves Field and Marshall had just finished losing $46,000 in 1932. He moved to Fenway Park and changed the name to suggest a kinship with the Red Sox while keeping the connection to an Indian theme similar to the Braves.

PS - Hail to the Redskins

A couple of things on this. The team name was changed to differentiate them from the baseball Braves. And you would be incorrect in assuming that using the name Braves as the team mascot, would not be seen as offensive to some. I remember going to the World Series games in '91 and '92 at Fulton County stadium here in Atlanta, and there being Native American protesters outside with bullhorns, demonstrating against the Braves use of that name for their team.

Last edited by Deadskins on Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

maybe it's just me but I do not call a race or a group of people a name that they do not like or want to be called - that's just me

when I use the word Redskins, I am ONLY referring to an NFL team - I am not using a derogatory word - that is the name of the franchise

IMO - there are some that are offended by just about anything

P A T I E N C E - Snyder needs to just 'butt out' and give Scot time to figure out who he needs in the FO, who he needs as the HC and what players fit what he thinks is a good system for this franchise - it's a mess & it will take time

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:Last I checked this was a Democratic country. You are aware that Native-Americans did a survey and less than 10% found the name offensive right? Some argue that was 20 years ago but 90% of the Native American population are not going to change their opinion. The over 90% liked them name. End of story; move on; the people have spoken.

Yes, because Native Americans are properly represented and treated with so much dignity in this country. LMFAO Please, stop. Seriously. LOLOL

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:Last I checked this was a Democratic country. You are aware that Native-Americans did a survey and less than 10% found the name offensive right? Some argue that was 20 years ago but 90% of the Native American population are not going to change their opinion. The over 90% liked them name. End of story; move on; the people have spoken.

Yes, because Native Americans are properly represented and treated with so much dignity in this country.

It's just a football team. Changing the name will not change the history, or get them off of reservations, so it's really a pointless outrage. I'm always skeptical when the native american civil rights movement is being lead by Mike Wise.

Besides, I don't hear fat people complaining about the NY Giants, or gay people about The Cowboys.

Deadskins wrote:OK, why is it more derogatory than calling an African-American (a term I don't like because I think it just serves to further divide people) black? The point is, it's only offensive if you have the predisposition that having skin that has reddish pigmentation is bad. The word is not a label given to Native Americans by Europeans, it comes from Native Americans themselves. In this way, saying it is equivalent to using the "n" word, or other racial epithets is simply not logical.

So, I'll take that as a yes...

If Native Americans feel as if it's derogatory, who are we to tell them different? You're not in their position.

I'm not saying that I want it changed tomorrow, but that I understand why people feel a change is needed.

Last I checked this was a Democratic country. You are aware that Native-Americans did a survey and less than 10% found the name offensive right? Some argue that was 20 years ago but 90% of the Native American population are not going to change their opinion. The over 90% liked them name. End of story; move on; the people have spoken.

The logo was added in 1972 at the request of Walter Wetzel, president of the National Congress of American Indians, and chairman of the Blackfoot tribe. He said, "I'd like to see an Indian on your helmets. It made us all so proud to have an Indian on a big-time team... It's only a small group of radicals who oppose those names. Indians are proud of Indians."

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:Last I checked this was a Democratic country. You are aware that Native-Americans did a survey and less than 10% found the name offensive right? Some argue that was 20 years ago but 90% of the Native American population are not going to change their opinion. The over 90% liked them name. End of story; move on; the people have spoken.

Yes, because Native Americans are properly represented and treated with so much dignity in this country. LMFAO Please, stop. Seriously. LOLOL

The inevitable result of a statement like this is that you're claiming to understand the current conditions/public fairness to all Native-Americans, especially in the context of their representation when surveyed.

Do you have inside information/proof of misrepresentation in this survey or is this just a generalized smoke screen response?

I don't have information on how "valid" this survey is, but it IS an official poll. By going on record as a staff member (assume true) on a site that could be categorized as a type of news media outlet (granted, unlikely), it might be wise to have tangible evidence to support your claim/insinuation.

Again, this survey is the only official record we have on the issue where more than just a handful of people and opportunist journalists are "petitioned" (so to speak). Its the largest demographic survey we have on Native-American's opinion about the name of this football team.

So I'm sorry but no, I will not stop; I will not be *sh$t* by opportunists. Not you, but the opportunists/overly sensitive (my opinion).

On the other hand, if a new survey is widely taken and the majority say change the name, well, depending on the interpretation of discrimination laws, we may very well have ourselves a name change. I wouldn't be happy with it for personal attachment reasons, but I would have no right to say otherwise because this is a Democracy.

All this said, nothing personal against you, I've agreed with many of your comments on this board. This is just a topic that others are blowing out of proportion without majority opinion evidence. That's why I pissed about this.